Row over who provides the EU’s ‘one voice’
Commission wants to take the lead in talks, while UN mercury negotiations proving to be a test case.
The European Commission is embroiled in a power struggle with member states over who speaks for the European Union on the world stage. The Commission is claiming that the Lisbon treaty gives it the authority to speak for the EU in international environment negotiations, while national governments are fighting to defend their place at the table.
The row intensified this week after the Commission withdrew a proposal setting out the EU’s mandate for United Nations talks on mercury being held next month. The EU has been left without a common view to take into the international negotiations. Senior diplomats meeting tomorrow (21 May) will discuss whether to take the Commission to court for “disproportionate” action.
The Lisbon treaty, which came into force on 1 December, was meant to end such disputes by giving the EU one voice on the world stage. But just as defining the powers of Catherine Ashton, the EU’s foreign policy chief, has led to turf wars between the Commission and the Council of Ministers, so arguments are raging over who speaks for the EU in policy areas where the Union and national governments share law-making powers. These include the environment, energy, internal market and agriculture.
The UN talks on mercury that are taking place in Stockholm in June are proving to be a test case for how the EU works in a post-Lisbon treaty world. National governments are worried that allowing the Commission to be sole negotiator will set a precedent for other talks, including those on climate change. The Commission believes that if it does not insist on being lead negotiator, the EU will look disunited and will underperform in international negotiations.
Rejected proposal
Hostilities escalated last week when the Commission rejected a Council proposal to divide responsibilities at the Stockholm talks. This proposal, supported by all 27 member states, would allow the Commission to be sole negotiator on some subjects, while the rotating presidency would lead on others and some would be shared.
The Commission said that this plan was unacceptable, because it should automatically be the lead negotiator. Officials cite the Lisbon treaty provision that the Commission “shall ensure the Union’s external representation”. But national governments say this does not apply to areas where the EU and member states share law-making powers.
“There seem to be some people in the Council who want to ignore the new realities of the Lisbon treaty,” said one Commission official.
“We are sorry that the Commission wants to use this as a test case to play institutional hard-ball,” said one national official. “You should still look into the basis of negotiations, whether it is exclusive competence or shared competence,” the official said. “The member states and the Council legal services are of the opinion that [the Lisbon treaty] hasn’t changed anything,” said another.
A spokesman for Janez Potoc?nik, the European commissioner for environment, said: “It is very clear that under the Lisbon treaty we should have a mandate to negotiate. The Council was refusing to co-operate.” The Commission’s decision to withdraw the proposal “was a last resort for us, but in the end we did not have a choice”.
The row carries echoes of the dispute between José Manuel Barroso and Herman Van Rompuy over whether the European Commission president or European Council president should sit in the EU chair at G20 talks. Similarly, the Commission and Council fell out earlier this year over who should sign a letter to the UN on the EU’s climate-change targets.
As well as possible legal action, national governments will also discuss tomorrow whether they could ignore the Commission’s withdrawal and adopt the Council compromise proposal anyway. “It needs to be clarified whether this is legally appropriate…we don’t have any experience with this situation,” said one official.
Andrew Duff, a British Liberal MEP, said that the Commission was right to withdraw its proposal. “It is important that the Commission stands up for itself and its prerogatives under the treaty.”
He warned that the row could damage the EU: “The picture given to third countries of a jealous presidency quarrelling with the Commission is disgraceful and will blunt the authority of the Commission.”